Pine Glow Investments (Pty) Ltd v The Minister of Energy and Others

Pine Glow Investments (Pty) Ltd held a site licence for an existing filling station in Acornhoek and objected to applications by Erf 6 Highveld Technopark Investments (Pty) Ltd and NAD Property Income Fund (Pty) Ltd for a new retail and site licence under the Petroleum Products Act 120 of 1977. The Controller of Petroleum Products initially refused the applications. Erf 6 and NAD appealed to the Minister under s 12A of the Act. The Minister upheld the appeal, set aside the Controller’s refusal, and remitted the matter to the Controller for re-evaluation in light of additional information. Following further investigations, the Controller granted the licences. Pine Glow brought a PAJA review to set aside both the Minister’s remittal decision and the Controller’s subsequent approval, but later abandoned the challenge to the Minister’s decision. The High Court and the Full Court dismissed the review. Pine Glow appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was dismissed. Pine Glow was ordered to pay the third and fourth respondents’ costs of appeal, including the costs of two counsel where employed.

The judgment clarifies the breadth of the Minister’s appellate powers under s 12A of the Petroleum Products Act, confirms that remittal on internal appeal is permissible, and affirms that a controller is not functus officio where an earlier decision has been set aside on appeal. It reinforces the PAJA principle that internal remedies must be exhausted before judicial review and contributes to certainty in petroleum licensing administration.